Political Punch

You do not see Gov Romney crying that he is being picked on because he is Mormon, which is the case!

I wonder when they are going to say they are being Swift-boated?

Which I find funny when they say that because they never prove the Swift Boat Veterans were lying, but those veterans proved they were saying the truth.

Can't wait till they say it, or two conspiracy theories?

Hey why not have a child come on an ad saying they can not sleep because Hilary was asked a single tough question, booo hoo!!

OK confused, Now you got me confused?
So you agree the mainstream media is full of Liberal Bias?

Here is a question why can't any Liberal debate the war without calling our troops Nazis, Terrorists, and so on, Without saying Pres. Bush Lied (with no evidence), why do they say a General Betrayed us, that is un-American and plays into the enemies hands.

Edwards is a major Flipper, just look how he made his money from Soro's Hedge funds, from New Orleans citizens foreclosures.

And Hilary well she is the biggest flipper.

No insult meant for the dolphin!

thank you for pointing this out.

thanks for finally calling out another dem besides hillary on anything. it seems in recent weeks that no other candidate is being scrutinized with the same vigor as hillary. i recognize that comes with the territory of being the frontrunner, but it feels very calculated of late. bottom line is, aside from her poor debate performance, hillary has laid out clear policy goals on every issue facing our country. the other candidates just whine and moan about her, and how she steals their ideas, and how she wont un-seal her records, and on and on and on. quit whining boys! if you want to take her on, tell us what you'll do differently. near as i can tell, no one has as detailed and convincing policy proposals as hillary and that's what's important. who cares if she flubbed one debate, she's still the most qualified, experienced and battle-tested candidate in the race. i want a winner this time, not a whiner.

The fact is, with regard to Iraq, there are no good options in front of us. So, I don't find it all surprising that the Democratic candidates are struggling with what approach to employ. At times they will be inconsistent and mistaken, but Emerson reminds us that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

We should never have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. We have a catastrophe on our hands, a direct result of placing shortsigted men in positions of power. Obama, Edwards, or Clinton will be inifinitely better leaders of this great nation than the current administration.

Patriotic

I was re-reading my post and I realize something I wrote made no sense:

"Where can I find instances that the entire liberal media (can you please elaborate on what that means?) either hates or is biased against the Republican party." Please replace "Republican" with the USA as of course a Democratic based media system will be inherently biased against Republicans. The question regarding the media being Democratically based still stands though. Thanks.

I do hesitate at defending Bush (yet again) in a thread that is supposed to be about the candidates and their merits, but...

After 911 there should have been a recession, actually there should have been a full blown depression. Why wasn't there?

some excerpts from wikipedia:

"The attacks had significant economic repercussions for the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) facilities and remote data processing sites were not damaged by the attack, but member firms, customers and markets were unable to communicate due to major damage to the telephone exchange facility near the World Trade Center.

When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1933, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history.

U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."

I'm tired of Political Punch's Edwards-bashing. First there were the repeated posts about his comments in Iowa and the "Heroes" ad, asserting that Edwards is implying that his being a white male is a plus for his candidacy. That's an unconscionable accusation, built on scant, selective evidence.

And today, here we are with almost 900 words on how you can't understand JRE's positions on any issues. Sure, Hillary is not the only politician ever to contradict herself or speak ambiguously, and JRE is not without his own vague statements. But he is not even in her LEAGUE as a prevaricator. Let's be clear about that.

On Iraq, his point is that if you have combat troops stationed in Iraq (as HRC would), you have not ended the war. He would leave combat troops in the area that could be deployed if circumstances required it, but in his terms, the withdrawal of those combat troops to bases outside of Iraq does constitute "ending the war." Each person can judge that semantic maneuver for herself, but I think it's clear that there is a real difference between JRE and HRC on this issue, and that it is inappropriate for HRC to say that she wants to end the war if she is not willing to withdraw combat troops.

You're going out of your way to pick apart Edwards' campaign messaging in a way that you don't do to every candidate. That's not political journalism, it's political persuasion. Come on.

@spock

I appreciate this info. I am trying to understand, but some points still remain unclear.:

- Where can I find instances that the entire liberal media (can you please elaborate on what that means?) either hates or is biased against the Republican party.

- Where can I find info that the budget surplus didn't exist? (I'd like to add a joke here, but I don't want to distract).

@southern_bell

I believe I did not answer your other questions regarding my viewpoint and whether people should agree with me or not.

It not is whether people agree with me or not, I'm not interested in making friends. What I am more interested in is looking at the facts of what happened and is happening and deciding as an enlightened group (regardless of party affiliation) what is the best course of action to take to ensure what is best for all of us.

Confused - Ok lets start with some facts! First our unemployment rate shows the strength of the economy, At last look France had a 20% unemployment. the 1.2% Deficit is the lowest in percentage of the GDP, Trade Deficit (excluding Oil) is low. Those are facts.

This so called surplus was a fiction number by Clinton,. at the end of clintons term we were headed for a Recession, Pres. Bush Tax cuts solved that.

Under Clinton , People like Edwards and the Clintons were involved in Oversea investments (still are) called Hedge Funds.

Yes I am talking not only of Iraq but all their reporting, and you can deny all you want about the Mainstream media being liberal biased, but facts are facts.

When people call our soldiers Nazis, murderers is that American? When the press ignores all the good news out of Iraq, Is that American?

Yes people can disagree with the War and be American, but when they start accusing our soldiers of those crimes well that crosses the line.

What about the 35% Dem that believe 9/11 was an inside job? What about Gore, Clinton, Kerry going overseas and Blaming America, Is that American?

Have you ever heard a Liberal Politician say Liberty?

@southern_bell

Thanks for your comment, when I wrote that let us not reduce people to non-relevance, I was responding to someone who posted some insults regarding the constituents of Republican party's intelligence. Which I do not think leads anyone anywhere.

And I winced at my comment regarding ignoring people who cannot be reasoned with -- that is another form of apathy that must be avoided. Ignoring someone is the same as reducing them to non-relevance (and is too easy!).

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify and revise my previous posting.

Now I'm "confused" first you say that republican's (that's whom I assume you are talking about)are reducing a group of people to non-relevance (do you mean democrats?)and you say "let us try and help them guide it in an intelligent manner" (by us do you mean democrats again?)
Then you flip by saying that "if it is proven they are incapable of reason, then they should be ignored" (do you mean republicans or just anyone who doesn't agree with you?)

So are you for reducing a group of people to non-relevance as long as it's you doing the reducing?

I still fail to see how the Liberal Media (I do not even know what that is) hates the USA. Where does it say that "they" want the USA to be defeated? Defeated in what? The World Cup?

I would assume that "defeated" means pull out of Iraq? Withdrawal, retreat = defeat? That kind of thinking seems as out of place as the old Human Wave Attack strategy practiced by the Britsh army and their muskets.

With regards to the economic situation, it cannot be measure simply in unemployment numbers. Both numbers in both presidential eras are insignificant compared to other countries. However, the dollar is weaker than it used to be (compared to other currencies), the country's surplus has reversed from a large positive to a huge negative, tourism is reportedly down even with the reduction of the dollar, etc.

Admittedly Clinton was not a saint -- he has overseen many bad acts during his stewardship, but to say that he destroyed the country is misguided.

Again, I urge you to follow through with the facts. Ignore which party the person you are interested in is affiliated with. Look at the person, not the party, as demonstrated by current and prior presidents, it is the president's values that will govern the country, not what he says nor what his party's mission statement is.

The truth is there is no real difference between the parties or the candidates anymore. They all look at the the poll data and build a populist viewpoint from it. Once elected they are completely controlled and funded by special corporate interests. The only way to clean the system up is to give all candidates who have a reasonable number of supporters the same amount of money, the only money they are allowed to use and equal Media access.

If one person out of ten can open up and reason objectively, that is one less person being led around by smell in the ever-changing wind.

Apathy is not the way out. Neither is reducing a group of people to non-relevance. Large groups of people can change this country -- let us try and help them guide it in an intelligent manner.

Of course, if it is proven they are incapable of reason, then they should be ignored.

Phyllis Cooke - Where do the Republicans Flip-Flop? please give facts, There is a difference between having an opinion years ago, and through the years changing your mind (just like Roe did) then in the past year through a single campaign flipping on the issues, like the Libs (to make Jim happy Liberals) And calling one out and not the other is not right either, this hypocrisy against themselves!

Bob - you are right, the thing about leaving troops on the out side to move in when needed was the original plan that Dems wanted changed so Bush Changed the plan, and now the dems want to go back. They are invested in Defeat!

spuorgoohay - Question Huckabee is one of the most Conservative Republicans?? I do not get your point.

Confused with a C - So you think the liberal-media does not Hate America, then why do they want us defeated? The Liberals Do not Hate America? Then why do they call us Nazis? Yes you are right it is confusing because they call themselves it!

Under Clinton 5.5 lowerst hit of unemployment, Under Bush 4.3% unemployment Which is better?
Under Clinton Social Sercurity was go brike by 2037, Under Bush Social Sercurity expected to last 2042! Still a problem, yes, but better!

Under Clinton china was giving Rocket Technology for Political Donations, Under Bush 55 million people given opportunity for Freedom, NK giving up Nukes, Libya Gave up WMDs Deficit at lowest % 1.9 in years

That is what is meant by Clinton destroying America, if it was not for the Republicans taking over Congress things would of been worse, they were able to stop a lot of his plans.

Edwards and Socialists (Jim like that better) are all flipfloppers!

Facts are Facts!

Tapper, what are you talking about? I watched the ad and it wasn't that bad. Why didn't you write a piece about candidates taking lobbyists' money if the issue is so important? You are covering the horse race. Boring.

As I read the comments made by others, I think to myself, "if these are jokes, they are very poor ones".

It is ridiculous to state, "if ...Lib media did not hate America...". What does that mean, that the liberal media, made up of citizens of the USA hate their own country, in effect hating themselves? That does not make sense. I urge you to readjust your view as it may hinder you from seeing the world as clearly as you may.

Another one, that "This woman would destroy this country even worse that her husband did." Are you honestly saying that Bill Clinton destroyed the USA? It still exists. However, it is in much worse shape economically and politically than in his era.

I agree with many of the other's opinions, "speak truthfully and with integrity". I do not like how many politicians alter their statements to suit a particular audience. Stick with your beliefs unless the evidence demonstrates your error -- and then admit it and update your beliefs.

But again, please people, wake up and think with a critical mind -- do not reiterate the common dogma -- reflect on your concepts of what is happening with an objective mind, put aside your emotion and think.

Do you work for the Clinton campaign? If not, you're getting cheated, she can't buy the press you lavish on her. Forget huge discounts to the moveon.org political machine, how ardently you defend her is so much better and so much cheaper. If she really is the savior of the democratic party, let her defend her record. As it stands, she has only made ad hominem attacks on the Democrats who wish to know her stance. (Which you only propagate for her by attacking Edwards yet refusing yourself to ask what makes her position so much better.) If I am going to vote for her I would really like to know her positions on key issues that will affect me for years to come. She is NOT her husband, at this point the most you can concede is that she is the best of an embarrassing field of candidates, the winner of which will get the White House. (The Republicans can’t win right now.) At this point I’d take the devil I know, the candidate who can articulate his position, then the devil I don’t, someone who in the span of a few minutes can change her stance. The true greatness of our country is that you can close your eyes and point at a field of candidates and cast a vote that’s just as meaningful as the savviest political aficionado. It’s your choice whether you would choose to be enlightened or not.

John Edwards as President with Huckabee,Paul,Obama,Richardson,
Gravel,Kucinich and others with him ,but without any neocons, are the solution for 2009, we need a fresh start and a totally new direction.

First thing is Energy Independence, training the workers and engineers in hydrogen fuel-cells,ethanol and bio-diesels from sugar-cane and jatropha,turbines and solar homes, , geothermal,liquid diesels from natural coal and fusion small safe reactors,we need to get America out of the Middle East Oil, we need total change.

Unfortunately, I have to side with Hilary on this one... I am a member of several lobbying organizations because they have clout and muscle to throw around politically on behalf of the millions of Americans who are members of these orgs. The most vilified is, of course, the NRA. Liberals seem to forget that they are not a bunch of rich businessmen trying to protect their fat wallets and profit margins, but in fact some professional git-'er-done folks who represent all of us who vote with our wallets by buying membership. As much as I personally dislike Lady Carpetbagger, and hope that she doesn't get the nomination she seeks, Edwards is so overstating the case in that commercial that he comes off looking like a real boob, and arrogant to boot.

Jake, as a conservative, I am amazed how biased you are toward Clinton where you admit "I agree that Clinton's debate performance exposed her to several charges of not presenting a clear opinion" yet you still seem to love her. How can you like someone politically if you don't know what she stands for?

This woman would destroy this country even worse that her husband did. I know you all think that Bush is destroying this country but that's because you continue to manipulate the public into thinking that liberalism and the democrat way is a good thing.

I wonder, is it possible for ABC to actually hire a conservative or at least someone who isn't biased toward democrats so the public can get the real story?

Lastly, as a conservative, Jim, I love your comment:
"If you are going to call the liberals "libs," I guess we will have to refer to the conservatives as "cons."

Early on Clinton stated that she would remove troops from Iraq and send them to Dafur. Then she says that she would keep them in Iraq. Strange, let's go from one hot zone to another-what does she really want to do?

Keep a quick reaction force outside of Iraq will not work either. One of the mistakes made was not placing military units within various sectors of Bagdad. They would move out for an operation-then go back to the Green Zone at night leaving the area that was just secured to be opened up to suicide bonbers and death squads. The presence of the military in these areas is working and should be continued.

The bottom line is this-no matter who is president-the troops will not be pulled out as what is being suggested.

It's about time that someone called out Clinton on her "I-won't tell-you-what-I stand-for-but vote-for-me-anyway" stance. There are several Democratic candidates who are more appealing, and so far Edwards appears the most forthright. As for the Republicans' honesty, that's laughable. They do so much flip-flopping trying to appeal to various audiences that they remind me of a troupe of tumblers rather than a group of statesmen.

If you are going to call the liberals "libs," I guess we will have to refer to the conservatives as "cons."

All the Libs are double talkers, they all flip-flop. The difference is that Hilary accidentally flip-flopped in front of the same audience.

A Real Leader Leads, does not follow pols, he/she gets the pols to agree with him/her.

If President Bush was a better speaker and the Libs in congress and Lib media did not hate America so much that would be the case now!